In a fight over how to lower Massachusetts residents’ electric and gas bills, the House and Senate are pursuing different targets. The House backed a roughly $1 billion reduction to Mass Save, while Senate Chair Michael Barrett is seeking savings by phasing ou
For Massachusetts families trying to absorb higher utility costs. the debate on Beacon Hill is starting to feel personal: where the state finds the money to cut bills could determine whether upgrades like insulation and heat pumps move forward—or whether savings come by changing how gas pipeline work is financed.
This session, lawmakers have put reducing electric and gas bills at the center of the agenda. But as pressure rises to deliver relief, the House and Senate have begun eyeing different ways to reach it—starting with two very different programs funded through utility charges.
In March. the House passed an energy affordability bill that would cut about $1 billion from Mass Save. the statewide energy efficiency program that subsidizes home upgrades such as heat pumps and insulation. Mass Save is funded by surcharges on utility bills that all ratepayers pay. whether or not they choose to participate in the upgrades.
Sen. Michael Barrett. D-Lexington—the chair of the Telecommunications. Utilities and Energy Committee—has said he wants Senate savings to come from somewhere else while keeping Massachusetts’ energy efficiency strategy intact. Barrett said he hopes the Senate’s legislation can save ratepayers more than the House’s bill while preserving the broader approach.
“You don’t throw the strategy out when you need to help people with their bills. You get smart,” Barrett said. “You keep your mid- and long-term strategy intact, and you find a way to still provide people with shorter-term savings.”
In the Senate bill he is shaping, Barrett proposes phasing out the Gas System Enhancement Plan, or GSEP.
Barrett’s argument traces back to how GSEP was created as part of the 2014 Gas Leaks Act. The program encourages utilities to replace leak-prone natural gas pipelines by allowing them to recover replacement costs more quickly. Gas customers pay for GSEP through their monthly bill. where it appears as a line item in the Maintenance and Infrastructure Investment section of the delivery charges.
Barrett said the program was more justifiable in 2014, when gas leaks were upsetting residents. But now, he argued, the spending has outgrown its purpose.
“Now, GSEP’s program spending outranks regular utility maintenance,” Barrett said. “Essentially, we created a special case, but made it too tempting for the gas utilities.”
At this stage of the program, Barrett said utilities are focusing on lower-priority pipeline projects. He said sunsetting GSEP would not mean those projects would stop. Instead. utilities would have to do the work under the state’s original cost-recovery scheme. which Barrett said would mean less profit for utilities and savings for customers.
To help craft the Senate approach, Dorie Seavey, a senior research scientist with The Future of Heat Initiative, presented GSEP data to Barrett and several colleagues, and also shared the information with The Light.
Seavey told lawmakers that the planned cost of GSEP in 2026 is $817 million, up from $292 million in 2015. She also said that since 2014, GSEP pipe replacements have cost $6.2 billion. And based on the pace utilities proposed to the state in 2022. she estimated total costs could reach $42 billion by the time the final pipeline is replaced sometime in the next decade.
Seavey also argued that as spending increased, the program became less cost-effective. She said that in 2015, utilities spent $1.3 million to replace one mile of gas main, while the estimate for 2026 is $3.7 million per mile.
Even as the program’s costs have risen, Seavey said customers are using less gas, while bills continue to climb.
Seavey supports Barrett’s proposal to discontinue GSEP.
“The GSEP statute effectively created an open-ended capital program in the Commonwealth with limited economic discipline,” she said. “Billions of dollars of infrastructure spending are quietly shaping what people in Massachusetts pay to heat their homes.”
Barrett said the full Senate will decide whether any cuts to Mass Save are included in the final bill, and he declined to predict a timeline for the legislation.
In New Bedford, all five representatives backed the Mass Save budget cut. But even there, GSEP reform is not treated as a dead issue.
Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, and Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, said they are not opposed to reforming GSEP. Sylvia said. “We still have to replace gas infrastructure. but let’s make sure that it’s not on the backs of ratepayers. ” adding that he is supportive of reforming GSEP if it can do that. He said the solution to rising energy costs likely lies “somewhere in the middle” of the two proposals. and that the Mass Save cut remains important regardless of what happens to GSEP.
Hendricks said he has been critical of GSEP “since day one” of the energy affordability talks.
“I think perhaps the House could have done something with GSEP,” he said. “I’m glad the Senate’s looking at it. Whether phasing it out completely, or drastically adjusting it — that’s obviously where rubber will meet the road.”
Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, told The Light he is opposed to eliminating GSEP. Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, said the Senate would have to propose an “alternative plan” to address gas leaks. Ouellette said that in the past three years he has identified five gas leaks in his neighborhood without actively searching.
In a written statement, Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral told The Light it is premature to comment on the Senate’s bill.
Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said he hopes to see cuts to both programs.
“Mass Save began as a straightforward energy efficiency program focused on reducing our energy consumption and protecting our environment. but it has morphed into a multi-billion-dollar inefficient and unaffordable program. ” Montigny said. “GSEP is now just another subsidy for the utility industry, with costs ballooning at an exponential rate. It’s not acceptable and needs to be reformed back to its original intent or scrapped entirely.”.
Utility industry officials have pushed back on the idea that GSEP should be ended.
William Hinkle. a spokesperson for Eversource. acknowledged that the cost of replacing gas pipelines has increased across the span of the program. But he said there is a reason. pointing to higher costs for materials and equipment. as well as paving requirements that are “more stringent” today than when the program began.
Eversource provides gas and electricity to New Bedford customers, and New Bedford is one of Eversource’s NSTAR territories. Olessa Stepanova, Eversource’s external communications manager, said GSEP costs equate to 5% of an NSTAR gas bill for typical residential heating customers.
Hinkle and Stepanova also disputed Seavey’s claim that gas usage is declining statewide. They said that during this past winter, Eversource Gas Company of Massachusetts and NSTAR recorded their highest volume of gas delivered to customers during any winter in the last decade.
Hinkle said cuts to Mass Save would save more people money because gas and electric customers pay the Mass Save surcharge, while only gas customers pay for GSEP. Still, he said Eversource is not advocating for cuts to Mass Save.
He argued that any policy that would cut GSEP is “shortsighted” because the program is an essential safety measure. Hinkle said gas leaks are an environmental hazard and that GSEP is one of the “most impactful” programs addressing carbon emissions. He said that since 2014. Eversource has removed around 44. 930 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year through GSEP. which he said is equivalent to removing more than 10. 400 cars from the road.
“The energy transition that’s underway in Massachusetts is not happening overnight,” he said. “We cannot compromise the safety and reliability of that (gas) system as long as our customers rely on it.”
Barrett said maintaining the program is not necessary to ensure safety.
“Safety has always been responsibility No. 1 for the gas utilities by virtue of state law. It’s not as if. if you lighten up on the loophole. you prevent the gas utilities from fulfilling their safety mandate. ” Barrett said. “(We can) insist the utilities keep us safe without handing them the keys to everybody’s wallet.”.
The political split is drawing strong reactions from environmental advocates who say Mass Save cuts would hurt climate goals and may not deliver lasting relief.
Vick Mohanka. director of Sierra Club Massachusetts. said Mass Save is “one of the biggest programs in the state to help with climate change and pollution.” He argued the short-term impact would not meaningfully reduce bills and said the long term could bring increased demand on the energy grid. leading to rising supply and distribution costs. Mohanka cited that. according to the Department of Public Utilities. Mass Save has saved ratepayers $16 billion in electric and gas supply and infrastructure costs in less than nine years.
Katharine Lange, Conservation Law Foundation’s government relations manager, echoed Mohanka, calling a $1 billion cut “disastrous.” Mass Save has also been criticized for disproportionately benefiting high-income homeowners.
A 2025 report from State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office found that residents in Gateway Cities—such as New Bedford—pay 24% more per person to Mass Save than residents in non-Gateway Cities, but receive little to no return on that investment.
Lange and Mohanka said the 2025-27 Mass Save plan is the first to expand equitable access. including more benefits for renters. Nearly 60% of New Bedford residents are renters who can receive benefits such as guides to assess energy use and rebates for energy-saving products. They said homeowners are entitled to more benefits, such as windows and heating and air-conditioning systems.
Lange said cutting the budget as the program begins addressing disparities would be a “slap in the face.”
Both advocates said eliminating GSEP is the better option for delivering savings. The Sierra Club supported the program at its outset out of concern for the environmental impact of gas leaks. but Mohanka said the group is now focused on decommissioning the gas system in favor of clean energy sources. Mohanka said. “We’ve seen extremely large public health impacts from gas appliances. including water heaters. furnaces. stoves and ovens. ” adding. “I would love to see more thought put into the air that people are breathing inside of their homes. rather than purely just a cost analysis.”.
The fight over Massachusetts’ energy affordability proposals is unfolding against a wider backdrop of rising utility costs nationwide. Since 2021, electric rates have increased by nearly 40% nationwide. Nearly 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. and 13.5 million customers had their utilities shut off in 2024. according to PowerLines.
A PowerLine poll released this week found that more than 68% of Americans reported their electric or gas bill had increased since last year, and over 77% of respondents said they are concerned bills will continue to rise. In the Northeast, those figures rise to 77% and 83%, respectively.
The poll also found that nationwide, only one in six ratepayers think their utility company puts consumer interests above the company’s interests.
Back on Beacon Hill. Barrett and supporters of his approach are focused on ending or sunsetting what he sees as an open-ended financing loophole in GSEP. House supporters of cutting Mass Save are focused on reducing administrative and marketing costs they say won’t affect energy programs. and they describe Mass Save as still set to remain the second-largest such program in the country.
The two bills are effectively asking the same question through different levers: if bills need to drop. which costs should be trimmed—efficiency spending that reaches broad ratepayer surcharges. or gas pipeline funding that reaches only gas customers but carries a different safety and infrastructure argument?. For now, the Massachusetts Legislature’s answer is still in motion.
Massachusetts Mass Save GSEP energy bills Senate House Michael Barrett utilities Eversource Sierra Club Conservation Law Foundation gas leaks heat pumps insulation